ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Far Cry Performance
Crytek has done an excellent job keeping up with the times. As new technologies come out, it seems like they do their research into how to use them on their production game. Incorporating SM3.0 code, geometry instancing, HDR, and the like into their last patch adds value to their game, gives us a platform with which to test the current incarnation of their engine, and gives potential game engine customers a look at what they could be getting in a shipping product. We are already hearing about another patch that will further extend the impact of HDR on the game, among other things. For these tests, we crank the graphics quality settings up to very high (ultra high for water) and let the chips fall where they may. The demo that we used for this test was the built-in regulator demo.
These tests show the top end ATI and NVIDIA cards running neck and neck. The 7800 GT leads the X1800 XL in performance (which is on par with the 6800 GT in the tests that overlap). The X1600 XT is able to perform better than the 6600 GT, but we should hope to see that from a card that costs over 50% more if MSRP is anywhere near street price. Again, the X1300 shouldn't be played at over 1024x768 unless the settings are dropped.
Enabling AA gives the advantage to the X1800 XT while the X1800 XL still lags behind the 7800 GT. The X1600 XT performs much better than the 6600 GT (which we wouldn't recommend running with AA).
Once again, the X1800 XT handles the impact of AA better than any other card. The added memory bandwidth is likely the reason why we keep seeing such good handling of AA. The 7800 GT and 7800 GTX both handle AA almost as well as the X1800 XL (and finally over-take the new ATI part at 2048x1536).
Crytek has done an excellent job keeping up with the times. As new technologies come out, it seems like they do their research into how to use them on their production game. Incorporating SM3.0 code, geometry instancing, HDR, and the like into their last patch adds value to their game, gives us a platform with which to test the current incarnation of their engine, and gives potential game engine customers a look at what they could be getting in a shipping product. We are already hearing about another patch that will further extend the impact of HDR on the game, among other things. For these tests, we crank the graphics quality settings up to very high (ultra high for water) and let the chips fall where they may. The demo that we used for this test was the built-in regulator demo.
These tests show the top end ATI and NVIDIA cards running neck and neck. The 7800 GT leads the X1800 XL in performance (which is on par with the 6800 GT in the tests that overlap). The X1600 XT is able to perform better than the 6600 GT, but we should hope to see that from a card that costs over 50% more if MSRP is anywhere near street price. Again, the X1300 shouldn't be played at over 1024x768 unless the settings are dropped.
Enabling AA gives the advantage to the X1800 XT while the X1800 XL still lags behind the 7800 GT. The X1600 XT performs much better than the 6600 GT (which we wouldn't recommend running with AA).
Once again, the X1800 XT handles the impact of AA better than any other card. The added memory bandwidth is likely the reason why we keep seeing such good handling of AA. The 7800 GT and 7800 GTX both handle AA almost as well as the X1800 XL (and finally over-take the new ATI part at 2048x1536).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Are they fully DX10 or partially? If partially, will that be enough to be Vista compliant?Clauzii - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I´m pretty amased that ATI despite the higher clockrate can acomplish almost the same as a 7800GTX although with 2/3 the Pipelinecapacity.I´ll look even more forward to R580.
MemberSince97 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Ahh Thank You Derek, this is much more AT style.Madellga - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Derek, nice update. Thanks for including 1920x1200 in the benchmarks, it is a good move and I hope that other sites follow AT on that.It is interesting to see how the performance of some higher level cards fall after 1600x1200. Anyone buying WS monitors should pay attention to this.
I was not conviced that the X1800XT was better performer than the 7800GTX, but looking at the WS high resolutions and AA+AF that pretty much settles the discussion.
Don't let the critics bug you. Use it as feedback and source of ideas for future reviews.
On the next article, please do not forget to check the famous "shimmering" effect.
Does the R520 family handles this issue better than the G70?
Take care
JNo - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Well put! This is extremely helpful for 1920x1200 LCD ownerserinlegault - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I think important point that is missing from all reviews is the importance of a Vista compatible graphics crad. The x1xxx's are the first graphics cards compatible with the new spec.So the price premium may be worth while if you are interested in upgrading the Vista, when ever it is finally released.
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
All you need is DX9 to be Vista compatible.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Oops, DX8.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
From the article:Yet you guys tested none. I think benchmarking available versions of FEAR, Call of Duty 2, Serious Sam 2, Black and White 2, etc would be much more enteresting than some of the choices made here. All the cards tested handle todays games well, but I would expect most who buy these cards are buying these for games that are soon-to-be released or coming in the next one or two quarters.
karlreading - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
i must admit it seems to me everyones just giving anadtech a hard time. the review seemed prtty reasonable, they responded to the massive backlash they got from there first review, and i think thats where the deserve the credit. sheesh guys! givem a break!karlos